I had three devices operating simultaneously, and somehow still managed to be wrong about everything.

My flight from San Francisco arrived at 11:45 p.m., and I was exhausted. My car needed gas, extending my hour drive home (without traffic) to an hour fifteen. I just wanted to crawl into bed.

Sucked Down the Information Sewer

Then the damn local news and talk radio station started telling stories of a shooting in Boston at MIT. A campus cop was shot, according to the news, during hold-up at a convenience store near campus. Dozens of police SWAT vans, cars, and helicopters were on the scene.

So I got home and flipped on a 24-hour news channel on the television. The radio news was at least two hours behind. The flashing lights and black panel vans had migrated to a suburb of Boston. Residents—now witnesses—reported a minute-long gun battle in their sleepy streets. (One minute may not sound long, but one minute is eternity for people in the vicinity of a gun fight.)

Police scanner traffic talked about two men throwing homemade grenades and other explosives from their speeding car.

Reports were fractured and inconsistent. No one could explain how the MIT campus police murder, the convenience store robbery, a carjacking, and the real-life first-person shooter video game were connected.

I was following everything on Twitter, Reddit, news websites, television, and police scanner apps.

And I knew nothing.

I had the names of the suspects wrong. So did a lot of people.

I went to bed at 4:30 a.m. thinking one thing and woke up at 8:30 a.m. hearing I’d been completely bamboozled.

Information Isn’t Always Helpful

I wish I’d ignored the entire Boston Marathon bombing.

Ignored is probably the wrong word. I wish I’d just missed it.

The time between the bombing and the shootouts I was in another world. I was on business, but the really cool business of gamificaiton. I didn’t watch much news or read newspapers. I was immersed in the noble practice of making the world more like a game, making work more human. Even though my iPhone battery kept dying in a couple of hours, I couldn’t stay connected to wifi (no fault of the facility or organizers), and I had a stomach thing the whole time, three days of gamification beat the hell out of feeling useless and scared.

Sometime Knowledge Is the Opposite of Power

There was nothing for me to do about the Boston bombing and its investigation. There still isn’t. So how could knowing more about it—more that turned out to be flat wrong—help me or others?

It couldn’t. Not living in St. Louis. Not with my skills and experience and talent. I was of no use to the people trying to capture the culprits or nurse the wounded or comfort the survivors.

We convince ourselves that we must know everything as it’s happening. We don’t. Stuff blowing up on TV reported by hyperventilating anchors creates a false sense of urgency and danger that leads to paranoia and surrender of control.

Enough.

I’m going on an information diet.

If it’s really important and really urgent and I personally need to know or get involved, someone will tell me. And that someone won’t be a news anchor.

This post I’m Kind Of Sick of the World appeared first on Simple Strategies.

The police in Watertown responded magnificently. But the most brilliant strategic move gets little notice from the press.

For about sixteen hours, hundreds of law officers, FBI agents, helicopters, and satellites scoured a relatively tiny area of Boston suburbs for one wounded terrorist. At the same time, they kept the public relatively safe, off the streets, and out of the way of their manhunt.

But they didn’t find their man.

By seven o’clock, Col. Timothy Alben admitted they didn’t know where Dzhokar Tsarnaev was. They believed he was still in the Greater Boston area, but they couldn’t know for sure.

So authorities lifted the “shelter in place” request, allowing people to leave their homes with a powerful admonition: remain diligent.

Col. Alben made clear that there was no “all clear.” The world is a dangerous place, but Watertown, Massachusetts was beyond dangerous. Somewhere in that quiet neighborhood lurked a dangerous, desperate, wounded animal who knew how to shoot a gun, build a bomb, and throw a grenade. Tsarnaev had means and motive to kill anyone he encountered, and Col. Alben warned people not to give Tsarnaev the opportunity.

Lifting “Shelter in Place” Led To Tsarnaev’s LIve Capture

Malcolm Gladwell wrote about the human brain’s “thin-slicing” ability in Blink. Experts can spot tiny anomalies that technology, to date, cannot.

We often think of experts as highly trained, long experienced professionals. In truth, though, we’re all experts on something, and David Hanneberry is the world’s leading authority on the boat in his backyard.

Hanneberry’s mind had mapped every bulge, roll, and slack of the tarp covering the boat, which his step son described as Hanneberry’s greatest love, after his wife. When Hanneberry’s eye glimpsed a little flap of the canvas, he knew immediately something was wrong.

That one little ripple of canvas, which no algorithm on the world’s most powerful computer could have detected, led to a bigger problem in Hanneberry’s mind: blood where blood shouldn’t be.No doubt the blood lit up Hanneberry’s amygdala, the little almond-shaped nodes in the brain’s limbic system that triggers the flight or fight or freeze response.

Alert, curious, and cautious, Hanneberry spotted a cut line that held the canvas in place. Not torn or worn through, but cut clean with a knife.

He lifted the canvas and exposed the wrong of all wrongs: bleeding man in his beloved boat.

The Limits of Technology and The Power of People

Had the “shelter in place” ordered remained in effect, it’s very possible that Tsarnaev would have died in David Hanneberry’s boat. All the helicopters and algorithms never would have told authorities that the canvas was flapping wrong. Big data didn’t know how that canvas was supposed to flap; only Hanneberry’s brain knew that.

By lifting “shelter in place,” the police exponentially increased the computing power available to spot something wrong. It worked. Keeping people off the street was a great tactical move. Lifting the order when they did seemed to be perfect timing.

I doubt the police lifted the order to increase the number of eyes searching for Tsarnaev. But it worked brilliantly. And we now know the real power of crowd sourcing, thin-slicing, and the human brain.

Cross-posted from Hennessy’s View.

This post Thin-Slicing, Experts, and the Power of the Human Brain Help Capture Suspect Two Alive appeared first on Simple Strategies.

The clock is ticking.

Three people are in a small frame house: a woman, her five-year-old son, and a man bent on killing them both.

And the clock is ticking.

Outside the house is a team of expert killers.

And the clock is ticking.

How this ends is up to you, and there are three possibilities: no one dies, someone dies, everybody dies.

And the clock is ticking.

You have only three tools: a video feed from the scene, a phone, and your brain.

What’s your first move?

You Are an FBI Hostage Negotiator

Whether you’re a CEO, a marketer, or a mom, you live in a scaled down version of the hostage negotiator’s world. How so?  Another party wants something, you want something, but on the surface your wants don’t seem to go together well.

You’re about to learn how to bring those conflicting desires to a happy ending. 

Whether you’re trying to close a deal, design a perfect loyalty program, or get your kids to pick up their clothes, you face the same challenges that face the men and women who talk psychopaths out of slaughtering their families.

Luckily, one of those negotiators, Chris Voss, revealed the tricks of his trade to Eric Barker.  And those tricks can make your life a lot easier.

Hostage Negotiation Trick #1: If You’re Right, People Die

The last thing a negotiator wants to hear the psychopath say is “you’re right.”

According to Voss, “you’re right” is the end of the conversation. When people say “you’re right,” they’ve given up trying to reason with you. You wore them down, but didn’t get into their head or change their mind.

we love it when somebody tells us we’re right. It’s usually when we’re making an argument and we’ve worn the other side down, and they’re just sick of us… Even if I believe in my heart that you are right, I’m not vested when you’re right.

The magic words you want to hear the other side say are “that’s right.”

when I say “that’s right,” I’ve put myself in a position of adjudicating what you’ve said, and I’ve pronounced what you’ve said right. There’s a much greater chance that I’m going to accept it if I’ve said “that’s right” as opposed to “you’re right.”

So you want to get to “that’s right,” but how?  And the clock is still ticking. You’re under stress. The coffee’s weak and cold, and your colleagues cigarette smoke finds you wherever you go.

You’re ready to argue, but don’t.

Hostage Negotiation Trick #2: Arguing Is Schizophrenic

Voss reminds us that it’s difficult to talk to a schizophrenic because he has a voice in his talking whenever he’s not talking. He doesn’t have time to listen to you.

When you argue, though, you become schizophrenic yourself. Think about your last argument. You were either talking (or yelling) or you were preparing your next argument. So was the other guy. No one was listening, except for trigger words to pounce on.

the only time the other side is silent is because they’re thinking about their own argument, they’ve got a voice in their head that’s talking to them. They’re not listening to you.

When they’re making their argument to you, you’re thinking about your argument, that’s the voice in your head that’s talking to you. So it’s very much like dealing with a schizophrenic.

Two schizophrenics arguing with three lives at stake probably doesn’t end well.

So how do you break out of this cycle of death?

Hostage Negotiation Trick #3: Listen Up and Nobody Gets Hurt

Listen to what they want. Really listen.

The idea is to really listen to what the other side is saying and feed it back to them. It’s kind of a discovery process for both sides. First of all, you’re trying to discover what’s important to them, and secondly, you’re trying to help them hear what they’re saying to find out if what they are saying makes sense to them.

Listen closely enough that you can paraphrase what they’re saying. Then ask them to confirm your summary. And be patient.

Yes, the clock is ticking. But it’s difficult to carry on a conversation and kill people at the same time.

As long as you have them spellbound with their own story, as long as you let them parrot that voice in their head, they’re not hurting anyone.

You can say, “What are we trying to accomplish here?”  Then, “How is what you are asking for going to get you that?”  If you make them explain it to you, a lot of times both you and them are going to discover whether or not it makes any sense. So you can become a real sounding board in the negotiations to try and figure out whether the solutions match the problems.

It All Comes Down To Persuasive Design

I describe Persuasive Design as “helping people get what they want—in the context of your business.” Sounds a lot like the way Voss describes hostage negotiation.

• Listen to gain confidence and understanding.
• Confirm what you’ve heard by getting to “that’s right.”
• Find out what they really, really want.
• Ask how their present course will help them get that.

And, finally, one thing that the hostage negotiator didn’t tell you, but I will.

Once you find out, by listening carefully, what they really, really want, offer them a plausible path to getting it that benefits your business. And lets three people leave that little frame house alive.

Let me know your hostage situation in the comments. I’m here to listen . . . and to help you get everyone out in one piece.

Now find out why you should avoid affinity bubbles.

This post How to Persuade Like the FBI’s Top Hostage Negotiator appeared first on Simple Strategies.

Allan Savory caused the slaughter of 40,000 elephants in a vain attempt to save the planet by stopping desertification.

It turns out that he succeeded only in turning lush grasslands into desert. And, of course, killing 40,000 elephants.

Biologist Allan Savory lobbied for the slaughter of 40,000 elephants in a vain attempt to save grasslands. Instead, the grasslands died even faster. Savory devoted his life to finding out why he and other scientists were so wrong about desertification.

Savory loves animals. He grew up in Africa and adores elephants. So why did he kill them?

Scientists Often Do More Harm Than Good

Global temperatures are higher now, on average, than they were 100 years ago. I won’t deny that. Nor will I deny that human activity has contributed to that warming. It has.

The question is: which human activities contribute go global warming, or AGW (anthropogenic global warming).

Climate scientists like James Hansen labor to hide the truth. But they know.

The answer is shocking. And the solution is delicious.

In this TED talk, biologist Allan Savory explains how he and other scientists discovered that in their vainglorious attempts to improve nature climate scientists and biologists have, instead, nearly destroyed it.

Thankfully, Allan Savory had the humility to admit he was wrong and the tenacity to spend his life finding a solution to the problem his fellow scientists caused.

Desertification Before Dinner?

One of the biggest culprits is the US Department of the Interior. The United States government has promoted desertification—turning grasslands and forests into barren desert—by driving cattle and herds off of government property, believing that animals cause desertification.

But herds of animals that roamed grasslands for eons before man help create and support grasslands. In other words, animals don’t kill nature, people do.

Areas in brown and yellow are deserts. You can see sand swallowing the planet. Savory’s field work shows that introducing herds of plant-eating animals can reverse desertification.

The Solution to Desertification Is What’s For Dinner

The answer is beef.

Savory and his team have reversed desertification over 15 million hectares by introducing herds of cattle and sheep to deserts.

The process is simple. It works exactly as nature planned—before pointy-headed scientists decided they knew more about nature than nature.

Reversing Desertification Feed The Hungry, Too

In most of the world, only animals can feed the human population. The environment will not support enough plant-based nutrition no matter what you do.

But herds of animals can live off the land, and feed the people.

Savory has proven it.

Ask Congress To Reintroduce Herds To National Parks

The US government and its expert scientists caused desertification over millions of acres of the US by forcing cattle and sheep out of national parks. And the same government policies caused the drought plaguing western states today. Savory writes:

I have also found that only two things we do cause billions of acres of such land to exhibit predominantly bare ground between plants:

1. Too few large herbivores (mainly livestock today) on the land demonstrating  unnatural behavior in the absence of pack hunting predators. This leads to over-resting the land while overgrazing plants.
2. Overuse and misuse of the tool of fire

Neither droughts nor any other action of nature cause billions of acres of the US and the world’s grasslands to exhibit such high amounts of bare soil between plants.

Put the cows back where they belong.

Ask your US Senators and Representatives to watch this video. Send them a link to this blog. Ask them to promote good policy and reduce destruction of grasslands. Then, please tell the world you took action by writing a comment on this post.

This is a matter of life and death for people and the planet. And it might prevent another 40,000 orphaned baby elephants.

This post Here Is a Simple Solution to Global Warming and Hunger appeared first on Simple Strategies.

I think I coined a phrase a couple of years ago: affinity bubbles.

(Image clipped from http://www.despair.com/idiocy.html. I love their stuff.)

Affinity bubbles are the cocoons we build to protect us from challenges to our beliefs. They’re confirmation bias on steroids. And search engines and social networks help us build them.

Sure, the sounds of our echo chambers can be as peaceful as a mother’s heartbeat to an infant. But what if you’re all wrong?

Realizing You’ve Been Wrong All Along Is Better Than Being Wrong And Denying It

Don Peppers is one of the smartest men alive because he actively challenges his own beliefs.

He recently reviewed a book that discusses the importance of accepting that you might be wrong. The book is Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error by Kathryn Schulz. 

While there’s much to love about the book, I want to stress one point: you might be wrong. In fact, to some degree, you are wrong about some aspect of everything you believe.

That doesn’t mean we should simply dismiss all of our beliefs. It means we should challenge all of our beliefs. It also means that we can become better advocates for our causes if we spend more time reading and thinking outside of those causes. (I’ve blogged about this before. And here.)

Here’s How To Break Out Of Affinity And Strengthen Valid Beliefs

To break out of your affinity bubbles, do this exercise. (It won’t take long.)

1. Make a list of your 5 most important core beliefs that are absolutely, positively certain of.

2. For each of 10 unshakeable beliefs, spend 3 minutes contemplating this question: “What if this isn’t true?”  Think broadly about this. How would the world be different if that one core belief were wrong? What would you have to change about yourself?

3.  Find one intelligent blog, article, research paper, or book that challenges your belief and read it with an open mind.

4. If you find your belief is still valid, circle it in red.  If, however, you are less certain of your belief, keep reading about it.

Make this an annual exercise. It will keep your mind broadening.  And you’ll probably find yourself far more open to ideas beyond your affinity bubbles. The more frightening this exercise seems, the more you need to do it.

Please write about your experience in the comments.

This post Affinity Bubbles Turn Simple Errors Into Mass Stupidity appeared first on Simple Strategies.

Unless you just want to vent, the reason you post things on Twitter is to influence people. But you can’t influence people who don’t see your tweets. The more people who see your tweets, the more influential you are.

So how can you increase your followers?  Research at Georgia Tech gives you the answer.

Twitter Things To Do

Be Positive. Positive tweets are more likely to be retweeted and people who use positive words have more followers. Who wants to listen to people complain all day? Use the ideal positivity ratio of 3 positive tweets to every 1 negative.

Be Informative. People like useful information. Linked to How To articles. Give useful tips, like “Order the Margareta Pizza at Stefeno’s.”  

Get Followed By People With Lots of Followers.  Network overlap is the number driving of followers. If you know someone with lots of followers, ask them to follow you.

Fill Out Your Profile. Longer profiles earn more followers because want to know about the people they follow. Link to your facebook page, to your blog, or to something where people can learn more about you. And tell people where you live, because we like people who are like us, even if they only share a name like ours.

Follow Back. When a real person with a picture and a profile follows you, follow them back. Reciprocity is the most powerful tool of persuasion, and it works on Twitter, too.

Twitter Things To Avoid

Avoid Negativity. Negative sentiment turns people off.

Avoid Hashtags. While hashtags help with SEO rankings, they turn people off. And never use a hashtag if you’re cross-posting to Facebook.

Avoid Broadcast Communications. People don’t check Twitter to hear your ad.

Ask Yourself This Question

You might say, “Great, Bill, but the country’s going to hell in a hand basket. Why shouldn’t I complain?  How else will we get people to pay attention?”

Most people know America is heading in the wrong direction. They don’t need more evidence; they need more answers. 

Every bit of scientific evidence shows we’re attracted to positive things and we avoid negative things. Negative campaigning works by turning people away from the other candidate, but it also turns people off from the negative campaigner.

If you want to influence people and win your point, you must first be liked, then recognized as someone authoritative.

So here’s your super simple task for this week: post 3 positive tweets every day.  About anything.  “My kids are great!”  “Here’s some good news we can use [link].” If you want, you may add one negative or neutral post.  

Do that for five days and see how many followers you gain.

BONUS: You will love this new information instantly, because it’s free!

This post How To Get More Twitter Followers appeared first on Simple Strategies.

At the funeral mass for a nasty, stingy, mean-spirited, reviled parishioner, the priest asked someone from the congregation to recall at least one positive trait of the departed.

Silence.

“I can’t believe that a man can walk the earth for seventy-plus years and not touch a single person in a positive, loving way,” the priest said.

Nothing.

“I know many of us had our differences with Mr. Gilford, but this is his funeral mass and we are Christians. I won’t continue until someone says a kind word about our departed brother.”

A few coughs echoed through the church. Some people nervously paged their missals. 

After a few minutes of quiet, a man in an old, gray overcoat rose slowly to his feet. He cleared his throat and said, “The brother was even worse.”

What Will They Say About You?

Will people line up to share your wonderful life stories at your funeral? Will they show up at the funeral home out of love and loss or out of a sense of obligation—to be seen? Or only to comfort those you leave behind, silently joyful that their lives are now free from the burden of . . . you?

This post The Sum Of Your Life Will Be a Legacy. Dare To Look At Yours? appeared first on Simple Strategies.

One of the most powerful tools of influence is fear.

Decades of research shows that fear of loss is about three times as motivating as hope for gain. (This changes under certain situations, like conditions of certain loss, but that’s for another time.)

So political message writers often use negative messages to influence voters to take a chance on a cause or a candidate.

This tactic works well with Republican voters, and less well with Democrats. New neuroscience research tells us why—and what you can do about it.

Republicans and Democrats Assess Risk With Different Parts of Their Brains

When assessing risk, Republican voters use their amygdala, while Democrats use their left insula.

The amygdala are the brain’s primary danger triggers. They kick off the flight-fight-freeze response.

The left insula’s primary function involves consciousness of self and others. It processes social information.

This is critical to understand if you’re asking people to take a risk.

This Study Is a Remarkable Predictor of Party Affiliation

The study by Dr. Darren Schreiber of University of Exeter with colleagues from University of San Diego shows that fMRI imaging during risk tasks predicts party affiliation with 82.9% accuracy.

That’s stunning. In fact, few other methods of predicting political preference even come close.

Read more about the study on Science Daily, and you can see the whole paper on PLOS One.

How To Influence Republican Brains

Say you want people to stop freaking out over the sequester. If want to influence Republicans, talk about the dangers of freaking out. For example, if the House Republicans freak out about the political consequences of automatic spending cuts, they’re likely to accept a really bad demand from the White House.

In other words, double down on their highly activated amygdala by reminding them (truthfully) that freaking out will only make things worse. There’s more to lose in compromise (surrender) than in standing firm.

How To Influence Democrat Brains

The White House has done a fabulous job activating the left insula in Democrats by talking about how sequestration will hurt them personally and people they care about.

To get Democrats to stop freaking out about the risk of the sequester, remind them that the more money the government takes, the less money people have to spend on important things like the environment, caring for the poor, and taking care of their families. Remind them that, someday, Congress and the White House will be in conservatives’ hands, along with all the spending power. Remember Bush?

You Are Not Your Voter

This is just more evidence that you are not the voter you’re trying to influence. And it’s only one aspect of brain science that needs to be considered when developing a marketing strategy.

What’s clear, though, is that messaging that mobilizes people who think like you might turn off people who don’t.  But carefully designing your campaign with multiple messages that trigger different parts of the brain will increase the number of people who at least consider your side.

This post Don’t Miss The Brain Study That Tells You How to Influence Democrats And Republicans appeared first on Simple Strategies.

**UPDATE**  The line sped up, I got in, and I love it. Mailbox is a huge improvement over every email app I’ve tried on iOS.  It’s better than the gmail app, and way better than the built-in iOS email app. Too bad it works only with gmail.

I wish enterprise email system (i.e. Exchange/Outlook) were biased to productivity and action like free, personal email systems.  It seems silly that enterprise software slows us down and overloads us with crap, while personal systems let us focus on important things.

Perhaps that’s one reason why big companies need government bailouts and regulations–to protect them from small companies that actually get stuff done.

Original Post:

Over 270,000 people are in line for access to a promising new email app for iPhone called Mailbox. It got a great review on LifeHacker today.

The app hit the App Store today, but the company has been taking reservations for weeks.

I was number 64,980, and access is granted in the order you placed your reservation.

The app displays the number of people in front and behind you, so you can tell how fast the line is moving.

The bad news: the line is crawling.

In three hours, I’ve gone from 64,980 to 64, 790. That’s about one person per minute. At this pace, I’ll get access on March 24, 2013.

If you reserve your spot right now, you’ll get access on August 28 at about 2 a.m.

For more, see the Mailbox site.

Here’s what to do if your iPhone goes black.

This post The Line For Mailbox iPhone App Is Very Long and Moving Slowly **UPDATE** appeared first on Simple Strategies.

Companies often declare, “we’re going to act like entrepreneurs.” Two years later, they’re still acting like big businesses but with relaxed dress codes. And maybe a few exercise balls rolling around the corridors.

Becoming entrepreneurial is all over the business press.  Forbes. Techcrunch. Gallup Business Journal.

But a new paper shows that the human brain might stand in the way of enterprise entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurs Brains Are Different

Managers and entrepreneurs brains make decisions differently.

This study by Daniella Laureiro-Martínez and others using fMRI shows that entrepreneurs use their entire pre-frontal cortex when exploring opportunities, while managers use only the left side of the frontal lobe.

While the public over-generalizes the specialization of the two sides, we know that thoughts that exclude the right side of the brain focus on linear, specific, concrete things, like numbers.Whole brain thinking adds more creative thoughts in the sense of considering things that aren’t yet real.

The scientists watched fMRI images of senior managers and entrepreneurs as they worked through two kinds of decisions. First, exploitative decisions where the subjects looked for ways to optimize existing systems or objects.  Next, they worked on exploratory decisions that required subjects to look beyond current tasks to “search for alternative courses of action.”  In other words, exploitative tasks are like multiple choice questions, while explorative tasks are like essay. In the former, the answer is given, but in the latter, you have to craft the answer yourself.

Why This Is Significant

Managers who rely only on the left side of their brain are unlikely to find answers that aren’t already known and available. Entrepreneurs, on the other hand, can envision possibilities beyond the scope of their experience.

This may explain why businesses that decide to become more entrepreneurial (I’ve worked for several) usually fail at the mission. Left-brain thinkers struggle with acting like whole-brain entrepreneurs. They can’t see what they haven’t seen already.

Businesses and B-Schoolshave shunned whole brain thinkers for the past 30 years . Few managers are wired to think like entrepreneurs. The exceptions are . . . well . . exceptional: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, John Mackey.

What You Can Do About It

The good news is that managerial thinking may be a learned behavior. It’s possible that people can rewire their brains to become more entrepreneurial.  Here are two ways to engage more of your brain:

1.  Print this acronym in the largest font that will fit on a piece of paper and hang it where you’ll see it many times a day:  WYSIATI.  That stands for “what you see is all there is,” and it comes from the Nobel psychologist Daniel Kahneman.  It describes the problem of half-brain thinking—of believing that the world ends at the horizon of our experience. Your WYSIATI sign should prompt to you think about the answer that isn’t given, the solution that’s never been tried, the people who don’t work for you yet.  Which leads to the second solution.

2.  Hire entrepreneurial thinkers or promote the ones you already have. While we can rewire our brains, it takes time. And many manger won’t play along. (WYSIATI will prompt many left-brainers to think “that’s nonsense.”) The fastest way to build entrepreneurial thinking into your organization is to give whole-brain thinkers great latitude to lead things. But you must stand behind them, overcoming your innate tendency to demand concrete proof.

Bonus

For a great video on left and right brain, check out this RSA Animate on The Divided Brain:

This post Why Big Companies Fail at Becoming More Entrepreneurial appeared first on Simple Strategies.